Strike!!!!

well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?

Not if it's the same wage the employer is offering all the employee's no if the Union makes a contract with an employer and neglects to add a clause that the wage increase does not include non-Union employee's or the employer so decides to match wages for all it's non -Union employee's then no I don't see an issue with it.

If the Union did not put in their contract, their wage increase did not include new hires that are not in the union, then I agree, so be it.

And the Union could be doing this intentionally, including those not in the union for the same amount of money, so that there would be no advantage for the owner to go with non union employees, so the union might think, no?
 
well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?

Not if it's the same wage the employer is offering all the employee's no if the Union makes a contract with an employer and neglects to add a clause that the wage increase does not include non-Union employee's or the employer so decides to match wages for all it's non -Union employee's then no I don't see an issue with it.

If the Union did not put in their contract, their wage increase did not include new hires that are not in the union, then I agree, so be it.

And the Union could be doing this intentionally, including those not in the union for the same amount of money, so that there would be no advantage for the owner to go with non union employees, so the union might think, no?

Solution is to pay non-union workers more then union workers. :eusa_whistle:
 
well, that would be a little unjust if the guy that wants to drop the union is making the same money the union negotiated for...don;t you think?

Not if it's the same wage the employer is offering all the employee's no if the Union makes a contract with an employer and neglects to add a clause that the wage increase does not include non-Union employee's or the employer so decides to match wages for all it's non -Union employee's then no I don't see an issue with it.

If the Union did not put in their contract, their wage increase did not include new hires that are not in the union, then I agree, so be it.

And the Union could be doing this intentionally, including those not in the union for the same amount of money, so that there would be no advantage for the owner to go with non union employees, so the union might think, no?

I would think that in the owner's mind that it would be more of an advantage to go with the non-union employee, in that case because they can deal with the employee directly and not through a go-between. However, I see the point your making, and from the Union's perspective it could be the exact opposite. In the end though the employer makes the decision as to what wage they will agree to pay, be they Union or non-Union what they are paid should be the same if the employer decides to do so. One other thing worth mentioning and this is just on a personal level Care, frankly a organization, union, club, etc. that takes wages from employee's and demands that everyone comply to that, goes against American values at least to me. If a person wants to be part of a Union then they should be allowed to do so, no matter what the company, and likewise if a person does not the same should apply and those that choose not to , should not be made to feel though name calling, intimidation, and other tactics that their choice is any less noble than those that made the decision to join the Union.
 
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.

Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?
 
SIERRA VISTA — Thousands of workers in the state are set to strike tonight if a deal is not reached between union leaders and two grocery chains.

If an agreement between Safeway Inc., Fry’s owner Kroger Co. and the United Food Commercial Workers Union Local 99 is not reached by 6 p.m., about 25,000 union members in the state could walk out.

Fry’s and Safeway, which together employ more than 400 people in Cochise County, have hired thousands of temporary workers in preparation for a strike.

Striking union members would receive $100 a week, said Jim McLaughlin, president of the union.

In September, union members rejected the most recent offer from the employers and voted to authorize its leadership to call a strike if their demands, which include health care coverage without premiums, are not met.

The offer by the two companies would see employees pay up to $15 a week for coverage.

“The employers want to shift more health care costs onto the workers by forcing them to pay new premium fees in addition to the co-pays, deductibles and other costs they already pay,” union spokes woman Ellen Anreder said in a statement earlier this week.

Showdown looming for union, two grocers | The Sierra Vista Herald

Code Section 23-1302, et seq.; Ariz. Const. Art. XXV
Policy on Union Membership, Organization, etc. No person shall be denied opportunity to work because of nonmembership in a union.

Prohibited Activity Threatened or actual interference with person, his family, or property to force him to join union, strike against his will, or leave job; conspiracy to induce persons to refuse to work with nonmembers; agreements which exclude person from employment because of nonmembership in union.

In a time when Unemployment is topping 10% and people are struggling to pay bills, again we have a Union management that cares little for the people it represents as they always have other than collecting dues and is urging these people to strike for a benefit that many Americans do not get and thats not having to pay for your health insurance. I have an idea, why not take some of the money you take from these people that are making only 10 dollars an hour in the first place and use that to buy them health insurance rather than pay your over bloated Union management salaries. The fact is there people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs if they strike as the companies are all set to replace them. Arizona law is on the companies side in this issue and the only people who are going to lose here are the good people who work at these stores because of an outdated 19th and 20th Century thinking that believes that when you don't get your way go on strike that will solve everything. You would think, after Steele, Textile, Auto, Toys, Aerospace, Computers, etc have all left this nation because of it that eventually someone might learn a lesson.

Given that a "heathy economy" in this system is defined as one having 1 in 20 workers unemployed, one doesn't have to wonder why the working class is suffering.

Even in a healthy economy, the masters use the whip of possible unemployment to keep worker salaries down.

And in THIS economy?

Well this is a Randian objectivist libertarians dream economy, now, isn't it?

You remember who the Randian objectivist libertarians are, don't you?

Those were the guys like GREENSPAN and BUSH II who keep telling us how market forces would make all of us wealthy.

Sometimes they like to call themselves FREE TRADERS, sometimes they like to call themselves libertarians ad sometimes they like to call themselves believers in capitalism.

Never be fooled by the sweet sounding titles they give themselves.

They are elitists who believe that the working classes are cattle to be exploited.

they are ot really capitalist, neither are they socialists.

They are basically fascists donning either capitalists or socialists' clothing as needed to swindle the masses.

They are not in or out of government, they OWN our government.
 
Last edited:
I fail to see how advocating for workers freedom to choose their own destiny somehow equates workers being treated like cattle or a number by the wealthy. If someone can answer this question for me then , perhaps I might find some value in a Union forces ALL workers to join their ranks as a condition of employment. Does a man or women go to work for the benefot of all the people they work for or the benefit of themselves and their family? If so, who should have the right to make the decisions as to their own destiny them or some body of the whole? I'm not advocating for the wealthy here, I'm advocating that workers who go to a work place should have the RIGHT to choose for themselves. I submit that people who would advocate that people don't have that right, and somehow that by doing so is a (insert all cliches here). Those are the one's who are really advocating for taking away the rights of others to favor a system that is beneficial for one group and one group only.

I wonder then if the poster by posting Ayn Rands philosphy is now advocating less individual persuit of one's own happiness and now the "collective" is somehow more important? I don't think you would find many, even in within the ranks of the Unions who would honestly admit that they are working for the "collective" and not their own individual happiness. As for Greenspan and Bush II , when it comes to me, I would not assume automatically that any or all of my postings are a ringing endorsement of economic policies of the Bush Administration or Greenspans for that matter.
 
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.

Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 - Title 29, Chapter 8, United States Code
The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that do at least $500,000 in business a year. It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.
The Federal Minimum Wage

This might be helpful.
 
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.

Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?

people then are responsible for accepting the raise given to them, and/or trying to argue with them or prove to them that you deserve more than the measly raise given....IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS to do such and are not afraid of just being "let go" for 'no reason' in a George Orwellian, "Right to Work State". :D
 
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.

Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?

people then are responsible for accepting the raise given to them, and/or trying to argue with them or prove to them that you deserve more than the measly raise given....IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS to do such and are not afraid of just being "let go" for 'no reason' in a George Orwellian, "Right to Work State". :D

yes ---if you're a pussy and can't work out a contract with an employer, a union will be glad to do it for you-----for a price of course---and if they decided everyone SHOULD get more money then you'll be sitting on your ass until a new deal is worked out.
 
"If you do the right job then money will come to you. Because people who need you will request, will ask for you, will attract you, and will be willing to pay you for your services." Jose Silva


"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
 
"If you do the right job then money will come to you. Because people who need you will request, will ask for you, will attract you, and will be willing to pay you for your services." Jose Silva


"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What's to stop those who do not want to be in unions from choosing a job without a union? ;)

They are not forced to work at these union jobs, are they?
 
"If you do the right job then money will come to you. Because people who need you will request, will ask for you, will attract you, and will be willing to pay you for your services." Jose Silva


"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What's to stop those who do not want to be in unions from choosing a job without a union? ;)

They are not forced to work at these union jobs, are they?

Employer is not one that force, union is.

Have you ever seen that union intimidation and violence looks like?
 
Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

What is incredible is as horrible for this country as unions have been, PUBLIC unions are far, far worse - and will eventually destroy the country as a whole.

What they have done in NY, NJ and CA is criminal...
 
Last edited:
"If you do the right job then money will come to you. Because people who need you will request, will ask for you, will attract you, and will be willing to pay you for your services." Jose Silva


"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What's to stop those who do not want to be in unions from choosing a job without a union? ;)

They are not forced to work at these union jobs, are they?

If they are in a right to work state no, if they are in a state that is not a right to work state then they are subject to the NLRA and as a result if the agreement between the Union and the employer.

The denial by some employers of the right of employees to organize and the refusal by some employers to accept the procedure of collective bargaining lead to strikes and other forms of industrial strife or unrest, which have the intent or the necessary effect of burdening or obstructing commerce by
(a) impairing the efficiency, safety, or operation of the instrumentalities of commerce;
(b) occurring in the current of commerce;
(c) materially affecting, restraining, or controlling the flow of raw materials or manufactured or processed goods from or into the channels of commerce, or the prices of such materials or goods in commerce; or
(d) causing diminution of employment and wages in such volume as substantially to impair or disrupt the market for goods flowing from or into the channels of commerce.
US CODE: Title 29,151. Findings and declaration of policy
 
In a time when Unemployment is topping 10% and people are struggling to pay bills, again we have a Union management that cares little for the people it represents as they always have other than collecting dues and is urging these people to strike for a benefit that many Americans do not get and thats not having to pay for your health insurance. I have an idea, why not take some of the money you take from these people that are making only 10 dollars an hour in the first place and use that to buy them health insurance rather than pay your over bloated Union management salaries. The fact is there people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs if they strike as the companies are all set to replace them. Arizona law is on the companies side in this issue and the only people who are going to lose here are the good people who work at these stores because of an outdated 19th and 20th Century thinking that believes that when you don't get your way go on strike that will solve everything. You would think, after Steele, Textile, Auto, Toys, Aerospace, Computers, etc have all left this nation because of it that eventually someone might learn a lesson.

Would it be a good idea to have a universal health care scheme? That might help in this situation.

I have an idea, what if the taxes these people are paying could be used for a universal health care scheme?

As for the other parts of the post - what are you suggesting? Workers shouldn't be able to bargain????

What I'm suggesting is that in this case like most other cases, Union management has become professional management and has little or no interest in its members welfare. A person should be able to bargin with their employer, however I do not think because a person or a group of person do so, that those that are not subject to that agreement between that employees agreement should be made to do so. As I pointed out, many good people here in Arizona are going to lose their jobs over a political issue that the UFCW is pushing and I find this typical of an out of touch management structure that does little but collect dues from its membership for salaries.

Unless the striking union members are going to prevent non-union employees from crossing the picket line (in which case the police usually get involved), I don't see why they should lose their jobs. Huh?
 
Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

While I agree that certain unions have historically made outrageous demands, I still believe that without them, the average worker would have suffered even more imbalance between the upper echelon and the cogs in the wheel actually driving the machinery. Unions keep management honest.
 
Let me put it to you this way, I think it's pretty clear where my stance is on Unions. While I think any employee should have the right to bargin with their employer. I have little use for labor organizations that have done little for this nation in the past 30 years except contribute to it's industrial demise at the expense of the people they were supposed to be representing. So no, I have little use for Unions as this example I posted is a perfect example of how people that work for a company are represented by professional salary collectors with zero interest in their future. These employee's should be allowed to accept the managements offer if they like it and those that don't let them bargin on their own.

While I agree that certain unions have historically made outrageous demands, I still believe that without them, the average worker would have suffered even more imbalance between the upper echelon and the cogs in the wheel actually driving the machinery. Unions keep management honest.

As you can see Maggie, from one aspect I think that if people wish to be in a Union then they have my full support as do those that don't wish to be. I also realize that from a historical view Unions have been responsible for a lot of gains when it comes to the working environment we enjoy today and did not seek to diminish that one bit. I do feel however that Unions must adapt to todays business environment and while advocating for it's members it must also recognize as part of that advocacy that the company they wish to seek benefits from needs to compete in an environment that is much different than the past. If it's only interest is in salaries and benefits for it's memebrs and not the source of that salary and benefits then it does a diservice to it's members. On a personal level if Unions are so upset over the fact that non-Union employee's are working in the same company they are and are as they put it" emjoying the benefits that they negotiated" then I suggest they need to make it more worthwhile to join the Union because as I have said here in a few posts, it is the employer who decides to set the wages not the non-Union employee. This is why I find right to work states very much in line with workers rights, as they allow for the individual to decide whats best for them and not some random person that does nothing but collect a salary from members.
 
I fail to see how advocating for workers freedom to choose their own destiny somehow equates workers being treated like cattle or a number by the wealthy. If someone can answer this question for me then , perhaps I might find some value in a Union forces ALL workers to join their ranks as a condition of employment. Does a man or women go to work for the benefot of all the people they work for or the benefit of themselves and their family? If so, who should have the right to make the decisions as to their own destiny them or some body of the whole? I'm not advocating for the wealthy here, I'm advocating that workers who go to a work place should have the RIGHT to choose for themselves. I submit that people who would advocate that people don't have that right, and somehow that by doing so is a (insert all cliches here). Those are the one's who are really advocating for taking away the rights of others to favor a system that is beneficial for one group and one group only.

I wonder then if the poster by posting Ayn Rands philosphy is now advocating less individual persuit of one's own happiness and now the "collective" is somehow more important? I don't think you would find many, even in within the ranks of the Unions who would honestly admit that they are working for the "collective" and not their own individual happiness. As for Greenspan and Bush II , when it comes to me, I would not assume automatically that any or all of my postings are a ringing endorsement of economic policies of the Bush Administration or Greenspans for that matter.

'm definitely not a supporter of compulsory membership of a union. I am a supporter of the concept of a union, been a member, activist and officer of my union but I would never support the requirement of an employee to join the union before they can work. Apart from the philosophical opposition to it I think it would make some unions complacent and unresponsive to its members.

Workers act in their own interest as workers, they seek to maximise their economic interest. Where they have rare skills they can take advantage of the scarcity of their skills by charging a high rate for their labour. Where they have no skills to speak of or very low level skills at least, they are at the mercy of the employer who may only pay a rate which has been mandated by legislation. The only way that low skill or unskilled workers are going to increase their economic situation is by organising to present the employer with a quandary, basically a threat to stop working. An agreement reached by the employer and the employees, where the employees are acting collectively, binds all and is the terms and conditions of employment for new hires. So new hires benefit from the work and the financial contributions of current and previous employees who are union members. I believe they should join the union to continue to help their colleagues and to pay their dues for previous efforts by the union. I don't believe it should be compulsory and I don't advocate informal punishment. The union should make it attractive to join. Where I am a worker can ask to be considered as a conscientious objector (usually on religious grounds) and pay the equivalent of their dues to a nominated charity, that seems to be acceptable to all concerned.

Workers as workers act in their own self-interest when they go to work, they sell their labour and receive economic compensation. Where the rate of compensation has been agreed between the employer and the union then the worker is benefiting from the actions of others and I believe is morally obligated to join the organisation that will continue that activity. Morally obligated only.
 
There's an interesting side issue there that comes up. And I have to ask a question because I don't know the answer, in the US how are wages set? I need to expand on that question I think so let me try and explain what I mean.

Let's say a business has no unionised workers. And let's say the business employs carpenters and wood turners and other crafts. How does the business and each individual worker work out what they're going to be paid?

people then are responsible for accepting the raise given to them, and/or trying to argue with them or prove to them that you deserve more than the measly raise given....IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS to do such and are not afraid of just being "let go" for 'no reason' in a George Orwellian, "Right to Work State". :D

I've seen that - agreed definitely Newspeak! - "right to work" in Texas, I was surprised to say the least. :eek:
 

Forum List

Back
Top